Why Can't I Own a Canadian?--A Religious Letter

Obviously your logic and reason are flawed since you came back to me. But I had a good idea by radar instinct that this would be the case.
In your elevated position you can justify anything ..particularly when it disagrees with your devout religious belief on this topic. No problem. Once
again I make note of it to the readers out here. This jfj123 is peak performance for you.

I do not consider myself elevated. I consider myself Salty. I do not believe in your bias that you know the difference. No problem again.

By your posts, it's obvious you have a hatred for homosexuals and this is how you're venting it.

I did not respond to this statement of yours in my earlier post but now make note of it for the purposes of illustrating your posting technique.

I do not hate homosexuals jfj123. This is a bold and crass assumption on your part because of the insecurity you have in you. It is you who must
elevate yourself on this type of guilt technique of transferring guilt to others in order to once again elevate your claim to moral ethical high
ground. In like manner to which this machine I am describing went after this contestant.
You must heap any and everything you can conjure up to justify your beliefs. No problem with me on this. I will take it all.

What I greatly dislike is ignorance and open stupidity. This should be clear by my previous posts.

But in your haste to establish yourself as righteous here ...you must automatically paint others into your self built corners. No problem again.

You need to understand that this could be seen as coming from you....and even others with the same position. Including the concept that our
conversation was not over as you tried to claim. Like many women and effeminate..you must get in the last word while claiming the opposite. Once
again...noted.

jfj123, Like many of your genre...you can be easily lead to do this type of conduct because it is the only thing you know..building on one assumption
after another to justify yourself and your beliefs. It is predictable. It is also very sad because it so obviously seeks to establish itself as
elevated by these very sorry and poor techniques. Yet you make the elevated claim of others because they do not let you drag them across the road to
your belief system. Once again telling of your intolerance.

Your statement about hating homosexuals is also indicative of intolerance.
You automatically assume that because someone is not in favor of something that they are a hater. This is standard logic and reason today among
intelligences. It is also false. It is not enlightenment. But it makes for good drama until people grow and mature sufficiently to see the pattern,
this technique, this modus operandi for what it is.

Oh..and this ...about censor/censorship.

I go by the legal definition as applied in The United States of America.

I understood the definition of which you choose to use. I also understand that censorship also means to rebuke, condemn, reprimand. You choose the
narrow minded definitions to support your positions while ignoring what you deem should be ignored by your logic, reason, and emotions and call it
intelligence, enlightenment. There is more to the definition of censorship, censored, and censor than that which you "choose" by preconceived bias
and ignorance/intolerance.

In short what this machine put in motion by Perez Hilton did was to condemn and attempt to expurgate this contestant ..this woman from and in the
public conscience. They censored her.
You need to get out more.

In my view you can do much better than the methods and techniques you are want to use but your provincialism keeps getting in your way.

I do hope this helps you as well as some of the other readers to this thread.

You see I know you're the type of person that must have the last word no matter what so I'm just curious to see how long you will string
this out so you can get the last word

In your elevated position you can justify anything ..

You're actually the one who claims to be in an elevated position, not me as I've stated before

But do go on

particularly when it disagrees with your devout religious belief on this topic.

How does anything disagree with my devout religious beliefs? And what are my devout religious beliefs?

No problem. Once again I make note of it to the readers out here. This jfj123 is peak performance for you.

Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.

I do not consider myself elevated.

Of course you do. You've stated as such

You must heap any and everything you can conjure up to justify your beliefs. No problem with me on this. I will take it all.

Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.

...you must automatically paint others into your self built corners.

Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree with them.
As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.

No problem again.

If it's not a problem, why are you complaining about it ?????

that our conversation was not over as you tried to claim.

I changed my mind. I'm having fun

Like many women and effeminate..you must get in the last word while claiming the opposite. Once again...noted.

You seem to be the one doing everything you can to get in the last word

jfj123,

Feel free to call me jfj

Like many of your genre..

What is my genre ?

Yet you make the elevated claim of others

Not others...just you

You're the one supplying the evidence I am correct

Your statement about hating homosexuals is also indicative of intolerance.

Yes I consider anyone that hates people because of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.. as intolerant. I thought I was pretty clear about
that earlier but as you say, "no problem...again"

You automatically assume that because someone is not in favor of something that they are a hater.

If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.

This is standard logic

Actually it's intermediate logic. If I used proper punctuation, it might be advanced logic

I go by the legal definition as applied in The United States of America.

I understood the definition of which you choose to use. I also understand that censorship also means to rebuke, condemn, reprimand. You choose the
narrow minded definitions to support your positions
No I choose the legal definition since that is the one that protects free speech

In short what this machine put in motion by Perez Hilton

For the record, I can't stand perez hilton but he has a right to express his opinion as long as it isn't libelous or slanderous just like you have
the right to express your opinion about perez hilton. You can even get a big group of people together and you can all express your opinions at once
if you like.

did was to condemn and attempt to expurgate this contestant ..this woman from and in the public conscience. They censored her.

Nobody censored her. Simply by stating something over and over won't make it true. Here, lets try:
I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am king of the Universe....I am
king of the Universe....

even the gay community will tell you that those numbers are inflated by those who are 1. g.t.g. gay till graduation, 2, those that simple act gay
for one reason or another, 3. those caught up in the chic of being thought gay.

Sure it does. It shows the manner in which you do or do not operate..how and why you think the way you do. It also shows that you cannot be taken
seriously. Why?? Because you keep going back and forth to me..the very thing you declared you would not do.

I realize that his topic is very dear to you .but as I am trying to state..your methodology leaves alot to be desired if you are attempting to be
taken as serious. And this is a serious topic ..indeed!!

You see I know you're the type of person that must have the last word no matter what so I'm just curious to see how long you will string
this out so you can get the last word

This looks silly in lieu of your statement I have quoted above ..the opening remarks of this post. Once again it makes it difficult for those who can
see..to take your posts/posting seriously.

You're actually the one who claims to be in an elevated position, not me as I've stated before But do go on

It is Salty..a Salty position ..do you know what it means and implies??

How does anything disagree with my devout religious beliefs? And what are my devout religious beliefs?

Your devout beliefs are of the feminine...in and of this world and the things of this world....of the flesh...complete with emotional default settings
to deceive you into thinking you can heap guilt and blame on others for how they think and express themselves. Translate that censorship. That you are
allowed to default..play through unquestioned unchallenged...by automatic default settings ..like this computer..it automatically goes there.
There are people out here who see this in you ..in the body politic, in the media and in public education non standards.
They don't go along and are not interested in your labeling them...nor default settings.
And they are teaching others to spot it across the board for what it is ..cheap censorship...also a sign of a religion at work..a very devout zealous
religion.

Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.

We are going to agree on this because of your provincialism. It limits you ..as obviously evidenced by you misunderstanding of the definition of
censored, censors.
Wow..we are agreeing on something here.!!
Be careful here jfj123.

I stated..

I do not consider myself elevated.

you stated..

Of course you do. You've stated as such

No jfj123 I did not state that I was elevated...you did here ...remember??
From page 10 of this thread.

I like the way you try and elevate yourself above us by letting us know that you've trained yourself to spot these "techniques" that
lesser people use Your insinuation is that you can't be tricked by us because you're smarter

Insinuated is what you are reading into my statements. and then calling it elevated. This shows to me insecurity..in how you must continually put the
onus on others. Its ok..I'll take it all. I can handle it. But it is not mature jfj123 in its methodology/motives. It does pass for good drama among
most..but not to me.

Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.

LOL LOL LOL..ahh..sorry.I am slipping. This is serious business here.
No need to clarify on your part is why we are having this conversation, which you stated we were not going to be back and forth on page 10 of this
thread and which I quote at the very opening of this post...right??
This conversation goes back to page 6 of this thread. Yes..you most certainly don't need to justify yourself. I agree. But you do send mixed messages
by your method/methods of operation.

Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree
with them. As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.

I am gratified to hear you say this jfj123. I don't have much use for the KKK as well. Around here some of us call them "Kluckers."
To be frank about this I think it is just as stupid to declare ones excellence or acceptability on the basis of their race ...just as it is stupid to
declare ones excellence and acceptability on the basis of sexuality.
It is incredibly stupid. It is the very epitome of stupid. And I can demonstrate that very easily about race.

These "Kluckers" respond to me in similar manner as do you until they find their default settings don't gel with me..then they become very
vitriolic/threatening. No problem I can handle that as well. Racists have problems trying to paint me into a corner as well. I consider Jesse and Al
to be racists too. Why?? ..because take race away and they have no topic. They are a one topic side show. A cottage industry. Hence they are
racists.
But it is not popular to remove such default settings ..is it?? Bad form to put Light on such nonsense!! No matter how true.

Declaring greatness and acceptability by race or sexuality is equally stupid and a very poor nonstandard...but it does make for good drama...until
one becomes mature enough to see it for what it is.

I am glad you brought up that perspective about the "Kluckers" Thank you.

I changed my mind. I'm having fun

Wow!! As I stated earlier in this post ..it is difficult to take you seriously when you make statements like this on a topic which is supposed to be
serious and dear to your heart. Now here you are proving it out once again.

What is my genre

Your genre is effeminate..in and of this world and the things of this world. Of the flesh. So to are Al and Jesse...the Kluckers as well.

Yes I consider anyone that hates people because of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc.. as intolerant. I thought I was pretty clear
about that earlier but as you say, "no problem...again"

I understood you said "Haters" or hate. I used the word intolerant while expecting tolerance of others. Here I will quote you again...

By your posts, it's obvious you have a hatred for homosexuals and this is how you're venting it.

Here again your quote and error...

If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.

jfj123. Disfavour is not the same as hate. You are grasping for straws here. And it is not good logic.

For the record, I can't stand perez hilton

I cant stand him as well. I thought him to be a drama queen. Not mature.. as it was he who asked the question and then could not tolerate the answer
in a very immature and dishonorable manner. He is intolerant.

Nobody censored her.

Many censored her even tag teamed here. I call it a gang bang.

Did you look up the definition of Censored ...which I provided in the link??

YOu cannot censor a person until after they have done something....in this case ..spoken out in honest answer to a question.
Censor and censored is not the same as free speech. You seem to be having problems with this concept ..once again indicating your provincialism in
thought and understanding. Please re read the definition of censored.

Glad to see this little treatise is getting some traction. I have a tendency to trot it out when the gay-bashing begins and it sure creates a bunch of
huffing and puffing (and giggles from the other side).

Looks like the author is a Kent Ashcroft, more detail unknown. I like it a lot, and so do my gay pals.

in and of this world and the things of this world....of the flesh...complete with emotional default settings to deceive you into thinking you
can heap guilt and blame on others for how they think and express themselves. Translate that censorship.

No it's not

Can't respond. Statement makes no sense.

We are going to agree on this because of your provincialism. It limits you .

Actually no what limits my understanding of you in this particular case is your poor sentence structure

I stated..

I do not consider myself elevated.

you stated..

Of course you do. You've stated as such

No jfj123 I did not state that I was elevated...you did here ...remember??
From page 10 of this thread.

I like the way you try and elevate yourself above us by letting us know that you've trained yourself to spot these "techniques" that
lesser people use Your insinuation is that you can't be tricked by us because you're smarter

Insinuated is what you are reading into my statements. and then calling it elevated.

Yes. You see I use a very complex piece of software to analyze what you're typing to come up with the actual meaning based on your inference. It's
called a BS METER

You've pinned the needle

This shows to me insecurity..

Really ? About what? I can't wait to find out how insecure I am

in how you must continually put the onus on others.

I find it amusing that you actually don't realize that you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of

Its ok..I'll take it all. I can handle it. But it is not mature jfj123 in its methodology/motives. It does pass for good drama among
most..but not to me.

You're great at name calling

Let me clarify. I have no need to justify my belief system to anyone.

LOL LOL LOL..

You're laughing really loud. Please use your indoor voice

ahh..sorry.I am slipping.

I know. It's ok. I understand

This is serious business here.
No need to clarify on your part is why we are having this conversation, which you stated we were not going to be back and forth on page 10

I believe this is the 5th time that I've stated..."I have changed my mind". I guess what I'm saying is that I have changed my mind

of this thread and which I quote at the very opening of this post...right??

Yes. I've also stated 7 times now..."I have changed my mind"

You were able to glom on to 1 post but not 7? really????

This conversation goes back to page 6 of this thread.

I believe that is correct.

Yes..you most certainly don't need to justify yourself.

Thanks for agreeing with me

I agree.

GREAT !!! glad to hear !!!

But you do send mixed messages by your method/methods of operation.

You mean when I said I changed my mind ? (8 times)

Actually I have no interest in painting anyone into any "self built corners". You have the right to your opinions whether or not I agree
with them. As example, although I hate the KKK, I support their right to free speech.

I am gratified to hear you say this jfj123. I don't have much use for the KKK as well. Around here some of us call them "Kluckers."
To be frank about this I think it is just as stupid to declare ones excellence or acceptability on the basis of their race ...

me too .

just as it is stupid to declare ones excellence and acceptability on the basis of sexuality.

me too.

These "Kluckers" respond to me in similar manner as do you until they find their default settings don't gel with me..then they become very
vitriolic/threatening. No problem I can handle that as well. Racists have problems trying to paint me into a corner as well. I consider Jesse and Al
to be racists too.

me too.

Why?? ..because take race away and they have no topic. They are a one topic side show. A cottage industry. Hence they are racists.
But it is not popular to remove such default settings ..is it??

Actually yes. They have a small audience because of what you've just described. People have become tired of the politically correct crap.

I am glad you brought up that perspective about the "Kluckers" Thank you.

You're welcome.

I changed my mind. I'm having fun

Wow!! As I stated earlier in this post ..it is difficult to take you seriously when you make statements like this on a topic which is supposed
to be serious and dear to your heart. Now here you are proving it out once again.

The topic is not dear to my heart. But lets be honest, we here because we find the batenage entertaining, enlightening, fun, etc...

What is my genre

Your genre is effeminate..

Not at all actually

If someone is not in favor of something, the disfavor that thing. Pretty clear to me.

jfj123. Disfavour is not the same as hate. You are grasping for straws here. And it is not good logic.

I'm not leaping to conclusions. I took one small step and there conclusions were

Nobody censored her.

Many censored her even tag teamed here. I call it a gang bang.

A group of people expressed their opinions of her. Many people in the United States do this every 4 years. Would you also consider that
censorship?

Did you look up the definition of Censored ...which I provided in the link??

No Sir..it shows what kind of person you are including insecurity. It has nothing to do with your sexuality. It has to do with the flesh and the
things of this world..the physical. In occult parlance matter is female and feminine ..physical..energy is male. You limit your pattern of thinking
and emoting to the feminine...matter ..to the physical. Once again ..just like your Hitler comment you go off on a tangent to look impressive. It does
show insecurity in the manner you go off on useless tangents. Again it does show drama/insecurity...which has been one of my points about your
postings, methods, techniques.

Actually no what limits my understanding of you in this particular case is your poor sentence structure

see above..feminine and Salty.

Really ? About what? I can't wait to find out how insecure I am

Already covered this material.

I believe this is the 5th time that I've stated..."I have changed my mind". I guess what I'm saying is that I have changed my mind

Yes..I agree..you most certainly did and also said this..

I find it amusing that ... also here.."I changed my mind. I'm having fun"

A=without.
Muse=thinking

without thinking..amuse/amusement.

As I stated afore..it is difficult to take you seriously when you use methods like this and on such a serious topic...then turn to amuse/amusement.

A group of people expressed their opinions of her. Many people in the United States do this every 4 years. Would you also consider that
censorship?

This is an excellent point of yours here in that what passes for public office in this country has turned into a similar dishonest gutter slug fest.
In exactly the same motives and justifications as this judge from this beauty contest. No honor in it.
Very cheap and gutter like. I am surprised that you would use this type of example. Very same/similar thing...censorship..gutter methods..digging up
dirt. It has taken any honor out of the election process and it also provides candidates of questionable character. Same thing with the political
parties and the process...all morally, and ethically questionable in their motives, methods and tact.

As stated before, I'm going by the legal definition of censorship.

What...?? I didn't catch this the first time around. Legal definition?? Wow!!

Lawful refers to the substance of law..what the law is and is intended to do..accomplish..the substance.

Legal refers to the form of law..the appearance of law..not the substance. Only the form ..that the t's are crossed and the i's dotted..the forms
are obeyed and observed. This is very feminine...of the flesh ..outward appearances..not substance.
Lawyers will often lie and deceive the public on this one.

You can find it in any Blacks Law dictionary. I have the 6th edition on my private stock of books.

Oh..and I am using the dictionary definition jfj123.

The topic is not dear to my heart. But lets be honest, we here because we find the batenage entertaining, enlightening, fun, etc...

I do not find this topic entertaining, nor enlightening, nor fun, nor amusing. If this is your stance you are wasting alot of time and effort on this
thread and lowering the quality of the boards in Amusement. This is neither honest nor enlightening.

Without thinking. A Muse..Amusement. Something fed to us to prevent thinking.

No Sir..it shows what kind of person you are including insecurity. It has nothing to do with your sexuality. It has to do with the flesh and
the things of this world..the physical. In occult parlance matter is female and feminine ..

So are you saying all women are emotional and illogical?

A group of people expressed their opinions of her. Many people in the United States do this every 4 years. Would you also consider that
censorship?

This is an excellent point of yours here in that what passes for public office in this country has turned into a similar dishonest gutter slug
fest. In exactly the same motives and justifications as this judge from this beauty contest. No honor in it.

So any group of people expressing their opinions is censorship and without honor according to you. Interesting....

Very cheap and gutter like. I am surprised that you would use this type of example.

It's a reasonable example which can be applied to almost any type of similar situation. Just using your logic

Very same/similar thing...censorship..gutter methods..digging up dirt. It has taken any honor out of the election process and it also provides
candidates of questionable character. Same thing with the political parties and the process...all morally, and ethically questionable in their
motives, methods and tact.

I'm only referring to the voting process. The fact that a group of people vote (ie express their collective opinions) about someone. You could
apply this to almost any similar process. I liked the way you tried to deflect from the subject though....good try !

The topic is not dear to my heart. But lets be honest, we here because we find the batenage entertaining, enlightening, fun, etc...

I do not find this topic entertaining, nor enlightening, nor fun, nor amusing.

Don't forget the etc... part.. and of course you do or you wouldn't be here.

I have seen no gay bashing. I have seen people with different opinions. People like you always call that bashing. So much for tolerance. Actually if
you read the entire thread the most hateful comments are directed not at gays but at people of faith.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.